User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/April

Nick Perito-Photo
Am hoping to be able to add a photo to the article's infobox. Have one in mind which should be acceptable, but am waiting for an answer to a question re: Ray Charles (composer) as he is also in the photo I have in mind. We hope (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean WP:MCQ? I'll leave a comment there.  Sandstein   07:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

After some checking, just learned the color photo's origin is the book jacket, so that's out. The owner of the Kokomo.ca website is not the owner of the private collection shown there. That belonged to Harry Smith, who is deceased; Smith allowed the site owner to publish photos of the items in his collection, so there's not a chance of getting a permission. It doesn't appear that Smith filed any copyrights on his private photos-those with the Queen Mother would be among those he took privately, as he lived in the UK. In the meantime, I found more re: Perito and will be getting it into the article soon. We hope (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Eastern European sanctions warning requested
You recently took part in the appeal at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive85. I've just run into Marek in the process of considering a Third Opinion request at Talk:Western_betrayal and following sections. It appears to me that he's trying fairly hard to maintain civility and composure in the face of some fairly irritating discussion coming from User:Leidseplein. Can I recommend that Leidseplein be given the Eastern European discretionary sanctions warning so that enforcement action can be taken against him if it continues? I'd do it myself, but as I understand it the warning must come from a sysop to be effective. Your call, of course, and best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC) PS: Leidseplein does have this to his credit, BTW: He, not Marek, requested the 3O. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that is true, he DID request the 3O which was commendable (honestly, I was about to do it but he did it while I was writing up my talk page comment).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek has in fact complained about this editor at AE. I suggest awaiting the outcome of that request before taking action.  TFD (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've issued a warning and closed the AE request.  Sandstein   07:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Props888
Hi Sandstein. Sorry to bother you, but could you have a look at Props888 edits to Talk:Feminism and Talk:Homophobia. There's a lot of soapboxing & flamebaiting going on here. Would appreciate an outside set of eyes on this-- Cailil  talk 23:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC) PS there maybe a Username issue here, see proposition_8-- Cailil  talk
 * It's also worth noting the politicized use of their userpage-- Cailil  talk 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The username is not a problem in my view and the userpage has now been changed. But the soapboxing, I agree, is unhelpful. I'll leave the editor a message.  Sandstein   07:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that some of my earliest edits do contain some soapboxing they were all at least helpful and, in regards to the homophobia article, the editors I were responding to were making wild accusations while soapboxing and I was merely defending myself which you seem to call "flamebaiting", and I changed my userpage (which, honestly, wasn't half as bad as some other editors and remember I am a relatively new user), and you have called my concerns with the feminism article on the talk page under the title "Sources" soapboxing, which you, coincidentally, haven't cited as an example of my soapboxing while 2 other users have constructively addressed them even though they may not agree with me.Props888 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation for the AfD rationale
Sandstein: Although I disagree with the outcome, I appreciate the care you took with explaining your rationale in Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews ... obviously you put some time and thought into it. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Related to this I have to say, that I really like your definition of "consensus, understood as a strong majority of policy-based arguments". I've read WP:CONSENSUS many times over and if I go by that page, I still have no idea of what consensus is supposed to be (rather than that there should be a "process" (which can be "invisible"!) to get it, consensus (whatever it is) is "good to have", consensus (whatever it is) is how decisions are made, that consensus (whatever it is) "can change" and a whole lotta other meaningless filler). Maybe you should suggest adding your definition to that policy page, including in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That idea of consensus is actually rather specific to AFDs, see WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. It works because you have one person, the closing admin, who is enabled to authoritatively weigh arguments and decide what consensus is. That's not the case in most other consensus-based processes, where the ability to allocate weight to arguments based on their quality is much more limited, because nobody is specifically authorized to do that.  Sandstein   20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Gabriella Fox AFD
I ask you to reconsider your close of this AFD. As both Tarc and I pointed out, the Scmidt argument, which you emphasized in your closing rationale, was based on inaccurate representation of the essentially trivial sources he listed, a point that Schmidt refused to address. Other keep !votes were flimsy and/or contradicted applicable guidelines (eg. one supposedly significant role in a notable release cannot satisfy the "multiple appearances" criterion. Finally, the AFD was tainted by the participation of the IP sock of an-indef-blocked user, who has an often-expressed animus towards me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you refer to Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination). I'm sorry, but I can't follow your argument. You may or may not be right with your assessment of the sources, but the point is that you convinced fewer people than MichaelQSchmidt did. And the IP editor, User:82.41.20.82, is not currently blocked, so I have no basis on which to assume that they are a banned editor, even if based on their contributions they seem to have been in conflict with you. I don't think that I can find a consensus to delete in this discussion, even though I personally agree that our excessive coverage of porn stars is not a point of pride for Wikipedia.  Sandstein   19:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi
Thank you for taking action at Iaaasi's community ban thread. Could you please re-block him without talk page access, noting the community ban? His talk page access was previously revoked by another administrator, who reversed his action at my request so that Iaaasi have a fair chance of defending himself during ban discussion. Now that Iaaasi has been community-banned, his talk page access can be revoked again. --Dylan620 (t • c) 20:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary unless they abuse their talk page.  Sandstein   20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Adam2 AfD
Hello. You closed Articles for deletion/Adam2 as no consensus, citing the lack of discussion concerning the nature of provided sources. I am of the opinion that I acceptably scrutinized the applicability of the provided sources to satisfying WP:N and the reliability of the provided sources per WP:RS. My interpretation of AfD is that it is based on the merits of the arguments, not the quantity. Can you further elaborate as to why the lack of discussion is an issue? Regards, Rilak (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for drawing my attention to the AfD again. I overlooked that made a "Delete" recommendation after first giving a "Keep" opinion, presumably changing his mind. This changes my assessment. I've re-closed the discussion as "delete".   Sandstein   06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reassessing the AfD. I think I should point out that Markdask has left a comment on his talk page in response to a message from me which implies he prefers the article kept. That said, as you point out, he did say delete later on in the discussion. I suppose if Markdask considers deletion to be an unacceptable outcome, he can request a deletion review. Once again, thank you. Regards, Rilak (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hanterspade
This editor breached 1RR on Suez Crisis prior to being indef blocked. Am I permitted to undo his 1RR violation now that he's been blocked as a sock? Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:EW allows "reverting actions performed by banned users" but not (merely) blocked ones. If you do not want to take the risk of being blocked yourself, you should not revert the edit.  Sandstein   11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a violation of 1RR. Why shouldn't any user be permitted to revert it? Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because violations of 1RR are not part of the list at EW, which applies by analogy to all revert restrictions.  Sandstein   11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for the explanation, but I think that's far from an ideal state of affairs, because it basically just rewards the violator. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi,

Could you please comment on this edit in the light of preceding discussion.

Thanks in advance, --  Ashot  ( talk ) 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you think is the problem?  Sandstein   19:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor is well aware of existing arguments (among them Hewsen's work for disregarding of which he has got a notification from you), and however claims that "All these claims have no basis, have no evidence". Furthermore he accuses other editors of "playing game" simply based on the fact that he doesn't "know which way Mr.Ashot clearly sees that in some maps Kosalar is shown as a part of Armenia". Meanwhile maps themselves are self-evident if one knows the very basics of Geography. He tries to waste others' time to push his agenda. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 20:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are wrong, but this does sound like a content dispute (that is, a disagreement about how an article should read). Administrators cannot resolve such disputes. You should proceed as described at WP:DR.  Sandstein   20:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I probably have not succeeded in conveying my thoughts well enough. Actually my request for comment was not about the content, but about the disregarding of/ill-faith attitude towards others' arguments by an editor. Thanks. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 20:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, there are WP:AGF problems, but not to such an extent that they warrant administrator action.  Sandstein   21:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Would like to bring this edit to your attention which was made after User:Verman1 had become aware of Wikipedia guidelines regarding preliminary discussion. The following is the opinion of User:MarshallBagramyan, which I share myself: "Even though one could say that the discussion on the Tsitsernvank is "ongoing", his edits on Gandzasar clearly constitute vandalism because they involve the removal of reliable sources, which plainly identify this monastery as Armenian, and highly contentious editing". Thanks, --  Ashot  ( talk ) 17:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not vandalism, but a content disagreement, and should not be called vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. Content disagreements must be resolved via WP:DR.  Sandstein   21:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, and what about this edit during an ongoing discussion? Shouldn't this editor somehow be enforced to follow Wikipedia guidelines? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 07:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may know better how to qualify also this edit. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 07:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the meanwhile we have yet another person to support Verman's edit warring. Please have a look at this and this edits which have taken place while the discussion is ongoing. I ask you to notify him either, so that it becomes possible to transport the dispute to the relevant discussion pages. Thanks. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 13:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * what do you mean intolerant? I restored neutral version undoing IP used to undo neutral version. Maybe it's one of your Friends. Dear admin, IP reverted when discussion did not finish. Dighapet (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Sandstein, you were the only one, who came up with a specific difference to justify banning me. What I said could have been a poorly formatted statement, but nothing else. Ones I added a quote from The Wall Street Journal'sarticle to the article I wrote. It was there for quite some time, but then somebody complained it was a "racist" quote. Immediately I removed it from the article. English is not my first language, and sometimes I am sloppy in my comments, but to topic ban me over that single maybe sloppy, but not a racist comment that I explained in a few places would be extremely unfair.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not supporting a sanction on the basis of a single comment (your explanation for which, I think, makes little sense), but on the basis of the totality of the evidence presented in the request in combination with your record of disruption in this topic area.  Sandstein   21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You came up with a single specific difference. Others did not come up with any. May I please ask you to come up with some more differences to justify "totality of the evidence" of my disruptions in this particular topic area. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the evidence submitted by Passionless, although not all of it is problematic, does highlight multiple incidents of sanctionable disruption on your part; no additional detailed analysis by administrators is necessary.  Sandstein   21:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. If an editor is going to be topic banned especially indefinitely this editor should know exactly what evidences are considered to be "sanctionable disruption" in the particular topic area. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is noted.  Sandstein   21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly I am surprised you did not archive the thread yet, or did not delete it at all :-) Sandstein, could you imagine a situation, in which a person is accused of, let's say robbery, and this person gets convicted because of "totality of the evidence" some of which are not about the robbery at all, the others of which prove nothing, and yet some others were explained and clarified, and with all of those "evidences" being presented by a person, whose greatest wish is to get rid of the accused, and whose own hands are not clean at all. It will be wrong to convict this person on such "totality of evidences", would it be not? And it is wrong to topic-ban me. Anyway. I see there's no use. Thanks for responding.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE
Please address Mathsci, Maunus, aprock, AndyTheGrump and mine's concerns directly instead and have clear response to questions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already given my opinion. The sanctions apply to "closely related articles", which does not apply to the articles at issue in the request, even though the material that was added to these articles may be related to "race and intelligence". There are already too many people complaining that discretionary sanctions are applied too liberally, so I prefer to keep to the exact wording of the sanctions. If you think the sanctions are too restrictive, you need to ask ArbCom to expand them.  Sandstein   19:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some times they need to be applied flexibly when situations come up like this where editors being in baggage from other topic area and insert them into articles like this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps sanctions would be appropriate here, but that is for the Arbitration Committee to decide, not for me. I am bound by the limitations set forth in their decision. But of course, another admin at AE may see matters differently and nonetheless take action.  Sandstein   19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've made several fair statements here but I respectfully disagree on this case.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RA, even though I share your concerns about Miradre 100%, I think this is in fact something that is perhaps better handled in another venue, like AN/I, rather than AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

While I think your interpretation of "closely related" is not unfair, I think that having direct input from other administrators before closing is only prudent. aprock (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding R/I AE
A clarification request related to you has been made. Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Race_and_Intelligence aprock (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The last appeal

 * Sandstein, I added the text I am posting below to AE, but I am not sure it will be noticed. So I'd like to repeat it here please:
 * I realize that calling users "trolls" is unacceptable. I could be banned on using this word. I could be placed on zero tolerance civility alert, but there's absolutely nothing in the presented, taken out of content differences, none of which was made in the main space to topic-ban me on I/P conflict. Please allow me to contribute to wikipedia. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you could do me a favor
Could you do me a favor and review this discussion? I think the treatment of SunCountryGuy01 may be too strict, but I'm willing to consider additional evidence if any exists.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've replied there. Regards,  Sandstein   05:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Email
Just sent you one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the mail and your help in this case.  Sandstein   05:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archieved thread
"PANONIAN, you are posting messages to a thread at WP:AE that is already archived. Nobody is reading these messages, so I suggest you stop posting them. If you think that there is a dispute to resolve, please use the appropriate forum per WP:DR. Sandstein"
 * Oops, sorry. I did not know that thread is archived. I suppose that then I should open new thread about user Nmate. I mean, I do not know why this user is attacking me now because I did not had any recent disputes with him, but I certainly like to spend my free time in more creative way instead to defend myself from his accusations. I think that I own him this favor and that I should open new thread about him with evidences about his personal and ethnic insults addressed to other users. PANONIAN  06:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no "personal" problem with PANONIAN, and neither is there any proof of ethnic insults that could be possible to bring up against me, because if there had had only one ethnic insult coming from me towards others, that would have brought up by those that the "ethnic insults " were adressed to. Or if so, they may not be happend within the confines of a reasonable time to be possible to bring up against me. In other hand, the reason why "I am attacking PANONIAN" is that that the parlance in which he spoke about Hungarians was not acceptable to me. But because the user has received an official ArbCom warning, I am being indemnified by that one ,and the case is therefore closed on my part.--Nmate (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: 1. I never said anything against ethnic Hungarians anywhere. It is clear that my posts are referring only to Hungarian nationalism and I have right to my political opinion about that political ideology. I never insulted anybody based on his ethnic, racial or religious affiliation, 2. I did not received any "official ArbCom warning". User:HJ Mitchell clearly said that I received notification and not a warning (it was just a notification "that I might be under sanctions if I do not behave in accordance with rules", but there was no conclusion that I did not behave in accordance with such rules in the past). So, Nmate, if you continue to lie about this notification I will ask that administrators officially forbid you to use word "warning" in relation to this. This is your second lie about me (the first was that I said something insulting against Hungarians). The only reason why I did not opened new thread about you is because I got bored with whole thing, but I can for sure open new thread for Wiki stalking and personal harassment that you conducting against me. Obviously, you trying to undermine my reputation in Wikipedia and it is evident that you stalking me and that you use same talk pages as I do. And here everybody can see history of your similar behavior in relation with other users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Evidences PANONIAN  16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Breaking 3RR
Please look at the recent reverts of Verman1 on these articles: Kosalar, Lachin, Daşkəsən, Tsitsernavank Monastery, and Gandzasar Monastery. He has also chosen not to discuss his changes in the talk page prior to or after making radical changes and has removed cited passages only to add in his own version. The quality of the articles can be improved, but erasing what one does not agree with is not the way to go about them, I hope he will understand this.--Moosh88 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please use WP:AN3 for 3RR reports, and supply the diffs of the reverts as required by the instructions there. They will be processed more rapidly there. I do not currently have time to take a look at the situation, sorry.  Sandstein   05:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you have missed my notes in the Request for comment section, please have a look there. Thanks. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 06:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Submitting new BIO
HI Sandstein...I have been in touch with you in the past about issues and errors on my page (essentially due to not being aware of how WIKI works, what is appropriate, inappropriate, etc.) I have created a new BIO for my WIKI page, and would like to submit it to you for review. Please let me know the correct procedure. I also need to learn how to post photos. Thank you for your help, much appreciated. Constance DembyConstancemary (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This aparently concerns Constance Demby. Ms. Demby, I would like to ask you to read our page Autobiography. It explains why editing, let alone writing, your own Wikipedia biography is not a good idea. I therefore recommend that you follow the guidance on that page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. For how to post photos, please see Help:Files. Sandstein  06:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein... Clarifying the following statement that you commented on: “I have created a new BIO for my WIKI page” --- The current new version was actually written by author K. Safir. I supplied her with factual information, album info, dates, etc. Since there have been issues in the past, we both want to make sure that it's OK before it’s made public the site; we would like to know where to post it so that it can be edited and checked in case we need to change anything. thanks Constancemary (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Constance Demby


 * Hi. K. Safir should register a user account and post their proposed draft at User:Username/Constance Demby, where "Username" is the username chosen by K. Safir. They should then ask for comment by other editors at Talk:Constance Demby. If there is consensus among editors that the draft article is an improvement, it may be copied over the previous content.  Sandstein   18:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Case at AE might be ready to close
At WP:AE, you are the only admin still thinking that a block is the best course. I would be willing to close as no action, but would like to know if you have more to say. I did find fault with the submitter's reasoning, but confess that my study of Anonimu's edits in the last 12 months has been limited. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the warning you propose.  Sandstein   18:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Striking that after reconsideration, will comment in the thread.   Sandstein   19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Request reinstatement of entry for "ch_interpreter"....
Hello,

I would like to have the Wiki entry for ch put back into the encyclopedia. The interpreter has been useful in the development of my several dozen C prototypes (small C source code of 75 to 400 lines) that can easily be used by anyone to create larger programs. The ch article gives the reader the necessary depth necessary [or certainly helpful] to use the interpreter to maximum benefit.

thanks,

gary kline

Re:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ch_interpreter

kline@thought.org Garykline (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the Wikipedia community has decided that the article does not meet our inclusion requirements. Your request does not address these requirements and therefore does not convince me to undo my closure of the deletion discussion.  Sandstein   20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Request original entry for 'ch interpreter'
Can you please send the original contents that regarded the ch interpreter to my own user:garykline page? I need to compare the original with things I have found elsewhere.

thanks much.

gary kline Garykline (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made a copy at User:Garykline/Ch interpreter. As soon as you no longer need it, please request its deletion with db-u1.  Sandstein   05:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Block
Please address each and every issue raised and give a detailed analysis as to why my unblock was declined. Moreover, please do not provide a pro forma response as that gives the appearance of a particular point of view to my guests. Please also note that having the Marine Corps mentioned more than Arman Manookian's name is of deep concern and troubling to Armenians as the Marine Corps in WWII actively recruited Armenians for Christian Martyrdom to fight in the South Pacific Island hoping campaigns. The fact that most Armenians and indeed, Americans, are unaware is a testament to the Marine Corps' treachery and betrayal of Armenian Americans. We find it highly offensive to have the Marine Corps consistently on an Armenian American Marine's name who committed suicide so as to promote their recruiting efforts. Moreover, I note that as user by the id John DC has purposely delinked Arman Manookian's middle initial for the apparent purpose of directing Google traffic to a Frazer Art. I would like to have a conflict of interest check done on John DC. Moreover, it also appears that John DC, users Sudoghohst and Field marine are collaborating together for propaganda purposes. Please advise how to proceed on this issue as well. Since Arman Manookian is of Armenian decent, I also ask that their conduct be observed in order to prevent propaganda. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you refer to this decline of your unblock request? As my message notes, your request was declined because it did not address the reason for your block, which was violating the WP:3RR rule. As to the other issues you raise, they appear to be unrelated to your unblock request and need to be addressed via the dispute resolution process. Please proceed as described at WP:DR. But note that it is disruptive, and may lead to sanctions against you, to accuse others of severe misconduct, such as "collaborating together for propaganda purposes", without at the same time providing proof in the form of WP:DIFFs. (Please do not provide such proof here, but in the appropriate forum per WP:DR).  Sandstein   05:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Interactions between micronations
You did not mention this in your closing statement, so I was wondering; would you object to a recreation of the article under the title Micronation diplomacy? The subject is very well sourced indeed under that title. Anarchangel (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a title change solves the problem that the subject was deemed insufficiently sourced.  Sandstein   05:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought as much. Deemed by who? Not the people at the AFD. Even the delete voters noted that the sources were good. For example:
 * "Delete - yes, there are good sources. Unfortunately, these sources mostly talk about what micronations are, or interactions between them and normal nations (which would be outside the scope of this article) Kansan (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seemed as though you might perhaps have taken the comments out of context, when you wrote: "The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems highlighted by the "delete" opinions, that is, that such interactions do not seem to be covered by reliable sources."
 * The one remaining possibility was that you had considered the possibility of renaming the article but found some other reason why that would be inappropriate, which is why I asked if you would consider a title change. The unmistakeable conclusion, based on your answer, is that you misread the comments. I suggest you read the AFD again. Let me know what you think. Anarchangel (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I assume if people were of the opinion that the article could be kept with a different title, they would have said so and proposed renaming it instead. And no "keep" opinion apart from yours contained anything resembling a valid (i.e., policy-based) argument. Sorry, I still see a "delete" consensus in Articles for deletion/Interactions between micronations.  Sandstein   11:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Crackle_(physics)
I believe that you should reconsider the deletion of Crackle_(physics). I summed up my reasons on the talk page. The only source is a webpage that admits that the terms in this article were made up on usenet. A common usage in mathematical or physics journals or a widely excepted text using these terms would proof their validity. I have not found any such usage nor have I ever heard the terms used in any physics or mathematics class through my graduate work or any presentations. I do not claim the no one has ever used these term I just don't think they merit a wikipedia article.

Phancy Physicist (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You may well be right, but there was no consensus for this view at Articles for deletion/Crackle (physics). I recommend to wait a month or so and then to start a new deletion discussion in which you address the arguments raised in the first AfD.  Sandstein   08:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-merging
I've added a link for Hinkon, is this the right way. I did not know, because I thought keeping the stuff on Wiki was not coppytheft, unlike putting it on a private site or taking content from a private site. --Wipsenade (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've unmerged it flagged it for deleation.Wipsenade (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review my thinking on the ch interpreter on user_talk:garykline
On  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garykline you will find a write up on why I think there should be an entry about the ch interpreter. There are more than 60 lines on my reasoning or I would have put it here.

gary kline Garykline (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean User talk:Garykline. Sorry, you may well be right with your argument, but what matters from my point of view is that the discussion at Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter resulted in a different consensus. If you think that I assessed consensus incorrectly, you can appeal the deletion at WP:DRV. Or you can rewrite the copy in your userspace with any additional sources you have discovered and propose that for restoration at WP:DRV.  Sandstein   05:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nick Perito
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Arb advice needed
Hi Sandstein, I'm looking at a situation for which I'd appreciate your advice regarding how to proceed. I'm asking you since you seem to be more familiar with the workings of ArbCom and WP:AE than I am, although I do participate at WP:AE on rare occasions. I have been involved in longevity articles in an admin capacity only, to ensure that the ArbCom general sanctions regarding longevity articles are adhered to.

ArbCom ruled: User:Ryoung122 "is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted." (See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity).

Last Friday, here Ryoung makes a long, rather non-sequitur comment advocating sweeping changes to Manual of Style (icons) in response to a proposal for a well-supported minor change that would broaden the guideline to apply to flags inserted in longevity articles.

A few minutes later, Ryoung122 posts this somewhat incivil message to the talk page of the person who proposed the MOS modification.

This definitely appears to fall under "commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted".

What sort of action is appropriate here? Deleting or collapsing his comments in the MOSICON discussion? Blocking the user for a time? Letting him off with a warning? I'm not comfortable with blocking him as it seems punitive in this case, and I don't like the idea of punitive blocks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that, at least, violates Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. There are also other recent such edits: and . The applicable enforcement provision is Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. You can either proceed as described there (block or impose a discretionary sanction) or make a request at WP:AE to act on the violation.
 * I think that a 48h or 72h block is appropriate. It would not be punitive because it prevents (for its duration) and thereafter deters continued violations. You can also delete the problematic comments, but in similar cases I've never bothered to.  Sandstein   17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An AE request was now made and I have blocked the editor, see WP:AE.  Sandstein   20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I know better now how to respond appropriately next time. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note
Hi, Sandstein. One of your AfD closes has been brought to DRV and I thought you ought to have a chance to participate in the discussion, which is here. All the best— S Marshall T/C 21:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification.  Sandstein   05:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for Articles for deletion/Parodies of Harry Potter (3rd nomination)
Hello Sandstein. I have just checked that this AfD was closed with a keep result, but no rationale was given. Could you tell me which was the rationale? While a majority of the votes were in favor of keeping the article, AfD is not a vote and I feel that none of the keep arguments addressed the concerns I had raised when I nominated the article. Also, I believe that I showed that many of these arguments were incorrect interpretations of the guidelines and policies, particularly with the lack of reliable sources and the false Google hits results and, because of this, the article was in line with the criteria of reasons for deletion. Per WP:VOTE and WP:CONLIMITED, even if a majority of editors want to keep an article, said article must still meet the generally accepted policy or guideline and I don't believe that this is the case. The way this AfD was closed, it seems like it was a simple vote. Because of this, I would like to know what was the rationale. Jfgslo (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. The rationale was that there was obviously no consensus to delete the article. Literally everybody but you was of the opinion that the article should be kept. So even if I were to agree with your arguments and disregard everybody else's, there's simply no way I can find a consensus to delete under such circumstances, since one person does not make consensus.  Sandstein   14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I wish other editors would have bothered with checking the AfD nomination and the article itself. Thanks for the prompt answer. Jfgslo (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invoking ethnic identity
I know I may sound like a broken record, but could you please tell this editor to refrain from invoking the ethnic identity of authors (see here). This is not the first time he has made such comments. And while it may appear somewhat ambiguous, the least he can do is to justify why he objects to Armenian sources. It does not appear that he is doing so because the sources might not be free to go up against the government, but seems to stem from his belief that because the authors are Armenian, then they cannot report objectively. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This statement does not invoke "the ethnic identity of authors".   Sandstein   17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war potential
Before this becomes an edit war, I was hoping to have some type of intervention at the page Talk:Mexican-American War.

The original wording of a subsection added by Tony1 was politely requesting comments. Allen3 modified the subsection slightly to tell people to 'drop the stick and walk away from the horse'. This change was undone by Tony1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&diff=423710083&oldid=423705214

Later, the language was added back into an additional subsection with the same language, which I modified to make it more in line with a civil and polite request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&diff=423723268&oldid=423717189

This was then reverted by Allen3, who was insisting that the changing the title of a subsection requesting comments should be considered "editing of comments" and an implied breach of Talkpage etiquette.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&diff=423725398&oldid=423723268

I then put back the more civil language, letting Allen3 know that such requests need to be civil and can't be claimed to be comments if they are being arranged in a way to become a 'request for comment' process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&diff=423726730&oldid=423725398

Thank you. --Avanu (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Lameness continues, please take a look at User_talk:Noetica and User_talk:Kwamikagami. I could do with some advice about how to proceed. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interrupt, but the lameness was fixed by Sandstein. The other stuff is just the normal ridiculous debate over whether to use a hyphen or dash in the title.  Let's not confuse a legitimate (yet incredibly long and tedious) debate with a problem that needs an admin solution. -- Avanu (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the warnings against edit-warring at MOS:STABILITY, I think that this requires admin intervention. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval, can you tell me here, concisely and with diffs, what the problem is and what you want me to do?  Sandstein  16:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You see, in 15 March the article Mexican–American War was moved from hyphenated form to dashed form because of this move request, and then I changed the name in the text to fit the title. Then Tony reverted my moves (he couldn't move the article because it's move protected. Then PMAnderson and kwami edit-warred about it  (with another editor joining in the fray [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexican-American_War&diff=419406218&oldid=419404306)


 * Then PMAnderson was blocked for edit-warring because he had a story of being blocked for edit-warring here, while kwami went away with nothing. Then kwami opened a RM to revert back to the dashed form.


 * Days later in 24 March, while the second RM was still open. Cwenger tried again to remove the dashes to fit the title, Tony1 reverted again, claiming a lot of things


 * Then the RM was finally closed in 4 April, saying that there was no consensus to revert the move. So, 8 days later, in 12 April I tried to change again the text to fit the title. I was reverted by Tony1, someone else reverted him citing consistency with current title, and Tony1 reverted again. So, I reverted him and left him an edit-warring warning, and Tony1 warns me against "pushing my personal POV" but at least he stops reverting and he opens a discussion to gather consensus. And then Noetica restored the dashes again, and I have warned him that "Please restore the hyphen yourself or I'll have to report you to the edit warring noticeboard".


 * Meanwhile, Cwenger, edits a related article that has the same name in the title, inserting a hyphen to fit the main article. And then, Kwami, the guy who opened the second RM that didn't get consensus, edits that article to insert dashes instead of hypehn, when that article has never had dashes in the name, and when he couldn't gather consensus to move the title of the main article from hyphen to dash. So, I have warned him about WP:POINTy edit-warring with stylistic issues, which happens to be very forbidden by MOS:STABILITY, which cites four arbitration cases to support it.


 * So, please give a final warning to Noetica, Kwami and Tony1 for edit-warring over stylistic issies (violating MOS:STABILITY) and making edits that go against consensus in talk pages and against two move requests. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, this looks like an edit war might be going on there, but the issue (a hyphen or an en dash?) looks so incredibly lame to me that I really don't feel that the half an hour I would need to look at this and issue warnings, blocks etc. would be time well spent. Normal readers do not notice, much less care, whether there are a thousand back-and-forth reverts about hyphenation. I recommend that you take it to WP:AN3 if you think that there is an actionable edit-warring case. Maybe another admin will take action despite the lameness of the whole issue. Or maybe you and everybody else could just drop it and edit something more, er, immediately useful?  Sandstein   17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Enric's description hardly touches the surface. This dispute has periodically flared since at least 2007.  At that time, the en dash was breaking the MediaWiki software (UTF-16 support was not available till MediaWiki version 1.12 in March 2008).  Please remember this situation the next time you feel the need to template the regulars before you investigate the facts yourself.  Your nastygram has at least given me a reason to distance myself and let a comparatively new Wikipedian, such as yourself, deal with this issue.  --Allen3 talk 19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @Sandstein. Ok, I'll give AN3 a try. As Allen3 says, this seems to be a long term problem, with editors at the MOS page refusing to follow the usage in RS and following instead their preferred usages. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And, just for the record, another editor decided to enter in the fray and make another revert, so I have sent him to AN3, and I have posted a general warning in the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

First, adding back in my wording that *you* removed.
 * Since you took my civil request for admin guidance and turned it into a cruel joke, I'm going to take out the prior request. I'm truly sorry I didn't know (and still don't) how to contact admins and chose you because I knew you were an admin.  The type of responses and the attitude that you're displaying toward this entire affair just disappoint me. -- Avanu (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Second, I removed *my own* comment. And while I acknowledge that this is your talk page and you can do whatever you like here, I don't feel that you honored the spirit of the request I originally made. That was my reason for removing my own comment, and so please don't ask me not to remove other's comments when I simply did not touch anyone else's comments. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, sorry; I should have said: please don't remove comments from other people's talk pages.  Sandstein   15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What actually would have been nice to hear is an apology for taking something that needed a little help and turning it into a huge distraction. I don't imagine most people like being presented with threats, and that's what happened to me here, thanks to you.  My experiences so far on Wikipedia have taught me that a person shouldn't allow situations to escalate, especially with regard to edit warring.  One asks for admin help if it appears needed.  You've responded over and over how lame you feel this is, and while you are completely entitled to that opinion personally, I hardly see how it is appropriate as an admin.  I would like you to advise me on how to contact a completely ininvolved, fair, and neutral admin regarding both the situation at the Mexican-American War page, and your behavior in response.  I originally thought being an admin means that you are willing to be thoughtful and patient and helpful.  My experiences here have made me question that.  I appreciate your cordial and prompt response.  Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, when you ask people for their opinion, you take the risk that they do not agree with you. Your dispute about the length of horizontal lines is so silly that it is an embarrassment for all who take part in it, but as soon as it disrupts Wikipedia by leading to edit wars, administrators need to intervene to stop these edit wars. See WP:SEEKHELP for ways in which you can ask others for their help or opinion.  Sandstein   05:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not *my* dispute. I have been repeatedly asking them to come up with a solution that they can all agree on.  I do appreciate the SEEKHELP link.  Thank you.  Of course you're more than welcome to have the POV that you have on the discussion, but I'm not sure if you noticed, some of the newer editors in the discussion at AN were finding themselves in the same quandary these editors have been a part of.


 * If you have 2 reliable sources that directly conflict one another, what do you do? Especially when the limitations of English (and Wikipedia) only permit one answer. (so they can't simply compromise) Well, I think you end up orbiting like these people have been doing.  I really believe you probably are a great admin, and that's why I turned to you in the first place, but a harsh hand isn't going to help these folks out.  And heck, I don't even care whether they pick one or the other, so I was super shocked you wanted to ban me from such a topic when I am terribly neutral on it. Anyway, I wish you well, and have to admit, you've made me a bit skittish of seeking help at your door again, but regardless, I won't let this incident rattle me any longer.  Have a great day and best wishes. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A problem
I have posted on the talk page of the Orontid article, references that indicate they are of Persian ancestry. I posted my information in the Orontid article(not removing any reference stating Armenian ancestry) and only to be blindly reverted by Phoenicians8(who has not participated on the talk page. I revert it and stated please discuss on talk page, at which point he appeared to simply allow the Persian ancestry and references to stand. I had also added Persian ancestry and references to the Satrapy of Armenia article. However, he posted on Kevorkmail's talk page at which point the Persian ancestry and references was removed from both articles(without the use of the talk page) by Kevorkmail. How can I get these editors to engage in the talk pages? If they can remove the Persian ancestry and references they will not waste their time on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please re-phrase this to include all relevant wikilinks and diffs?  Sandstein   05:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Phoenicians8 is mass-canvassing numerous other editors(I guess of Armenian ethnicity) along with using numerous anon IPs to canvass as well.
 * Along with this he removed the university sources added to the article Satrapy of Armenia and calls them, "POV and unreliable/misinformation sources", this without, of course any discussion.
 * On the article Orontid dynasty, I have been reverted numerous times all by editors that have not engaged in discussion..
 * So as it stands currently, none of the sources I added remain. As long as my sources are not in the article, none of the editors involved in removing my sources will waste the time on the talk page. Suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My immediate suggestion is that you are edit-warring at and need to stop or you may be blocked. I'll take a more detailed look later.   Sandstein   18:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you should ban me immediately. Apparently mass canvassing by Phoenicans8 and his numerous IPs is sanctioned. Let me know when my ban expires and I might return to adding university reference to articles on wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sandstein. I know your busy but that was not the appropriate response to Kansas Bear as he is the top user fighting vandalism and ethnic nationalistic edits in many pages. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I currently have little time for Wikipedia and cannot examine this issue further. Please see WP:SEEKHELP or WP:AE to request that another admin examine this situation, if you think action is warranted.  Sandstein   05:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another example of invoking identity which creates an unfriendly editing atmosphere
Hi, a new user which claims the genocides in the Ottoman empire is madeup and alleged: is contantly referencing the backgorund of editors which is in violation of Wikipedia is not a battle ground: But he continued: I have asked him once to stop pointing out the user's background and admin's background . Note once in a while there could be a biased author due to their own background (nationalist writers), but Nikki R. Keddie who is a full professor of UCLA is neither Iranian nor biased (rather it is mainstream Western source). This sort of battle-field mentality by the user is in violation of Wikipedia rulers. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked already to desist in point out user's ethnic background but he did not stop. "Please watch WP:Attack, referening to users' ethnic background and claiming they are bias because of it, is a personal attack. This is to note that the Azerbaijan-Armenia arbcom takes this issue very seriously and so you just have been warned about mixing user's background into the discussion." (April 6)
 * : "The other editors of the article who are coincidentally Persian are denying me the right to edit the article " (note the user went canvassing on several user's talkpage whom he believed shares ethno-linguistic connections to himself).
 * : "Then about 17 minutes later an administrator called Khoikhoi (who I belive is also Iranian) put an edit block on the page due to "edit warring" this block was made coincidentally after Kurdo777's revert of my contribution."  (Note the administrator in question is not Iranian)
 * He also called a Professor that was born in Brooklyn and is of non-Iranian background as Iranian. I quote him: ". Now if we were to investigate the reliability of Nikki Keddie we can see that she is an Iranian professor..." .  Note the said person is also not Iranian.


 * You need to tell me at least the username of the user in question. Please use the template userlinks. And please provide WP:DIFFs for each claim that you or the other person wrote something.  Sandstein   17:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the diffs above. The user name is: .    which from the start seems to have just worked on these sort of issues (seems like an SPA). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)::On a side note,  can you please look at this case:, the sock-puppetry was established for the two accounts of  and . The original sock-master had already been banned.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I currently have little time for Wikipedia and cannot examine this issue further. Please see WP:SEEKHELP or WP:AE to request that another admin examine this situation, if you think action is warranted.  Sandstein   05:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring clarification - a month later (let's finish what we've started)
We had a useful discussion at WP:ER, but it seems it died out just as we were about to reach a consensus on implementation. Please see my restart here, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste when we are so close to actually making something good out of all that talking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be useful to codify this in policy, and have replied there.  Sandstein   05:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and Southern Baptist Convention
Following the recent attempt to delete the entire British America article, your attention to the editing practices being imposed on these articles by user Novaseminary would be helpful. What do these 3 subjects have in common other than Novaseminary's involvement? The history of Baptist religion in the Americas from the 1600s to the present, weak historical knowledge and overzealous deletion impulses by Novaseminary. The Southern Baptist denomination doesn't even begin until the mid-19th century, yet that article includes a section on "colonial" era issues that is biased exclusively towards attention to Baptist churches in the southern United States. Either the entire colonial section should be deleted from that SBC article or the "colonial" section should include a historical narrative that is not regionally biased. I've gotten tired of donating my time to improving these articles only to be harrassed and frustrated by Novaseminary's abusive editorial practices. Thank you for your help on this.
 * Sorry, I currently have little time for Wikipedia and cannot examine this issue in detail. Please see WP:SEEKHELP for ways in which you can seek the input of others. Regards,  Sandstein   06:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For your information
Avanu has been banned from posting on my talk page for using it to launch attacks on you. Please do not respond on my talk page. I just wanted you to know in case this is a pattern of behavior or factors into anything else that may be going on between the two of you that I don't know about.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I went to Sven's talk page because I feel that a personal conversation can often be more productive. It was never my intent to offend him, and I've indicated that I will not post there again.  He made several comments on the AN about my behavior and rather than muddle the discussion with those, I felt a personal discussion was the best thing.  Apparently not.  This same technique has worked well with Lothar, who is also a part of that AN discussion. -- Avanu (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this, I misread the situation completely. Avanu left a large set of bolded text in the middle of his/her statement, and I misinterpreted it as him/her calling you those things. Instead it appears Avanu was quoting the AN thread. Nevermind.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please contact me
(Message containing e-mail address removed)


 * Hi, sorry that I apparently did not receive or respond to your mails. They may have gotten stuck in the Foundation's WP:OTRS e-mail interface somehow, which isn't very user-friendly. I'll get back to you per e-mail.  Sandstein   06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

...keeps going
User:24.85.232.175 and User:GiW are continuing the naming edit wars on Polish-Lithuanian articles: Władysław Syrokomla, Švitrigaila, Vilnius, Simonas Daukantas, Bernardine Cemetary, Vilkaviskis and probably a few others.

Do I need to file an AE report or can you just give them the "standard warning".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * IP blocked (almost only reverts) and editor warned.  Sandstein   06:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that IP is very likely a banned editor, will investigate further.  Sandstein   06:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your message. There was one more anonymous IP involved in the action (24.114.238.202). I noticed that both IP's are from the same city:, . So it looks like to be IP-hopping. Both IP's were used just for edit warring, so imho, they should be banned for more than three days. Btw, some contributions of the banned IP are still unreverted: Władysław Syrokomla, Simonas Daukantas, Bernardine Cemetary, Antakalnis Cemetery, Vilkaviškis. So I wonder if I can revert them now? GiW (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't. If I determine that the IP(s) edited in violation of a ban, I'll revert them myself after taking the appropriate action against the ban evader.  Sandstein   16:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but IP edited just before a ban. In addition, if those contributions will be left unreverted, this will encourage such practice of using anon-IP's for disruptive contributions. GiW (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the IP. However, take a look at GiW's edit history as well. It's all minor edits, cat sorting and assessment (stuff that doesn't require "talking" but builds a sort of an "edit history") and several copy/pasted copy vio articles - and then all of sudden he jumps into these edit wars out of nowhere. The user also avoids any kind of discussion or even making a statement that is longer than a few words.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am using my time for contributing Wikipedia but not for writing long and demagogic messages, wasting time of other editors and administrators. Btw, it is strange that when I started to revert nationalistic contributions of some anonymous IP's, Volunteer Marek began some kind of personal attacks reporting me to the administrators and looking for things to pick on. I looked over last Easter European-related case and discovered User's M.K comment about similar anonymous IPs actions and Volunteer Marek involvement. Regrettably, it seems that such behavior is tolerated in Wikipedia... GiW (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be much more helpful if you were to promise less reverting instead of discussing others, like VM. Reporting an editor, or asking an admin what one should do, is certainly not a personal attack, accusing an editor of personal attacks and some weird involvement allegations constitutes one. At least, that's my take on it, I expect Sandstein to correct me if I am wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hence the warning.  Sandstein   16:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

IP Edits - Jacurek
Hi Sandstain, My cousin made the IP edits you are investigating right now therefore some IP's may cross. I did not ask him to do it and I did not know about it until today but I realize that this does not look good. Please do whatever you think is necessary cause I'm probably done with Wikipedia anyway. Thanks.Jacurek (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was blocked for 72 hours for disruption
Those guys are refusing to discuss anything with me.

Bigks diff is just baloney. I have supplied citations from the most prestigious central bank economists and central bankers in the english speaking world and endless other citations from the last 40 years from other central bankers. All he wants is a page that reflects what he wants to see and with your cooperation that is exactly what he is getting.

They are gaming the system and taking you down with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewedwardjudd (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:GRA.  Sandstein   20:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Sandstein, when mbz1 linked her statement to this image, passionless accused her in linking her statement to an image of a Palestinian, and claimed it was racist. Actually it was passionless who made a racist statement describing this image as an image of a Palestinian. This image is an image of a murderer who lost his right to be a Palestinian, and it is precisely what Abbas said about other murderers "such act does not represent the Palestinian people."

Sandstein, you made an error in your assessment of mbz1's statement and in your assessment of passionless's conduct.

mbz1 is here to improve Wikipedia

passionless is here to use Wikipedia as a battleground.--Broccolo (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't have time to figure out and respond to confused texts with no diffs that don't tell me what the problem is and what they want me to do. Same thing with the comment by Andrewedwardjudd above.   Sandstein   19:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You may want to read WP:GRA.  Sandstein   20:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to go read WP:GRA for me.
 * I meant this out of touch comment of yours. There is practically nothing in your comment that represents a real situation with the editor. For example, the so called indefinite block had nothing to do with the topic, and besides it was reviewed and found to be unwarranted, and above I have already addressed the concern you expressed about mbz1 comment on the article's discussion page. Broccolo (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus
Please see User talk:Ludvikus -- PBS (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how this concerns me.  Sandstein   19:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
I've raised 2 points at ARB/EN as to why reporting edit warring might have seemed important to me and that I do not understand why this could be considered as a block-able offense. Regardless, I apologise if you were personally feeling that I was wasting people's time.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stalin's poetry
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/8th coming
See User:Polymathicjahn. I noindexed it and added a userpage template, but given the nature of the AfD discussion should it exist at all? Earlier I removed this link from an article, as you can see it links to the recreation of his article on his userpage. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's similar but not identical to the deleted content. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, though, there may be a case for MfDing this.  Sandstein   05:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The 8th Coming
I have re-posted this with different language. you can see it on my profile as polymathicjahn. is this the way to do it or is there a protocol for re-posting the meaning of a term that has been deleted?

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.161.219 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You should not re-post deleted content to your user space unless you intend to work on it so as to remedy the problems that caused its deletion. See WP:WWMAD. If you intend to do nothing else on Wikipedia than try to promote this book in some way, though, you are not welcome here. Wikipedia is not for promoting novel ideas, see WP:NOT.  Sandstein   05:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
Could you please go through my request on WP:ANI again. Thanks--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.   Sandstein   09:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not 1/rr?
Can you clarify how Tiamut did not break 1/rr? It also was not a meritless request. It was clearly a breach of 1/rr. It was a breach that might have been for the betterment of the project (both edits reek of POV) but it was against 1/rr. So maybe your last comment should have been: "1/rr shouldn't be breached but IAR might apply and the requester should have looked the other way." I don't see how you could warn anyone for trying to note a 1/rr concern in such a turbulent topic area. It is obvious you did not AGF with the request so it would be nice if you acknowledged it even more since it really is just an assumption that the editors involved were being underhanded. I'm actually surprised you assumed the worst since you usually (not always) make decent observations but keep it cool. The only editor that we know was out of line was the sock (who made that check user request anyways?) and I personally would lean towards the requester not doing anything wrong but do understand how it looks like NMNG was baiting the second revert. I doubt it was baiting since that revert had some good to it even though the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.Cptnono (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.   Sandstein   09:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have no permanent Internet connection now, so I cannot participate in this discussion. However, I would like to let you know that your proposal made on 06:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC) is exactly what is needed to prevent gaming of the 3RR by a group of users sharing the same POV. I'll resume my activity in Wikipedia in ine week, and I'll try to provide all needed help to include this text into the policy. Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Qantasplanes
has repeatedly disrupted Wikipedia over a long period of time. See this page blanking on 09:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC). And vandalism on 06:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC). More vandalism here.at 10:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC). He then vandalized here on 07:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC), prompting a level 3 warning from. Today, he vandalized Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7, which you closed, changing the result from "delete" to "keep". He claims this was an accident, which is very unlikely, given his past behavior. Would you indefinitely block this user for repeated disruption and vandalism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it later.  Sandstein   10:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll assume good faith (and an unusual lack of editing competence) for now, and refrain from blocking. Another editor gave him a last warning; if vandalism continues after that, try WP:AIV.  Sandstein   19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alma-0 (3rd nomination)
Hi! I was wondering if you could possibly consider relisting this AfD rather than closing it as no consensus? I realize that when the nominator is the only delete !vote, it really can't close as delete, even if all the keep arguments are not exactly acceptable, but it's only been open a week, and maybe some more actual arguments (from either side) may come in if it's relisted? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you just relist it after a few months or so. This might yield some more useful opinions (keep or delete) to begin with.  Sandstein   19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the general idea, would you be willing to amend the closure to read something along the lines of "no prejudice against a future renomination" or something like that? I only ask because this is now the articles 3rd AfD, and both this one and the previous one drew keep !voters arguing it should be kept because it was kept in the past. I explained the rationale behind the renomination in this 3rd AfD and luckily the editor understood and changed their argument, but often (as in the case of the second AfD) editors are willing to ignore this logic. Basically, each time the AfD, comes up there are !voters who argue it should be kept because of the past AfDs or because of sources that are not independent, and by the time I've finished explaining why this isn't an acceptable argument the AfD closes.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My authority as closing admin does not extend to deciding how many AfDs may be started about an article. But if anybody complains, you can point them to this thread, for what it's worth.  Sandstein   20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, thanks, I'll probably link to this on the closed AfD's talk page just for future reference.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

APCOA Parking
Hello Sandstein. I see you have deleted the APCOA page which I welcome of course as I had been the nominator. There were just two things which confused me, the first was that the voting seemed to favour the keep campaign by 3-2. I thought the count stood for something. The other thing was that you mentioned my points about the bad nature of the company were not taken into account, so this has made me curious: what exactly were the grounds for the deletion? Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. My closure of Articles for deletion/APCOA Parking as "delete" was in error. I seem to have clicked the wrong button. The result was of course "keep". I have corrected the mistake.  Sandstein   22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. If the article satisfies the criteria, it should stay. I do feel however that the negative coverage should be allowed to occupy the page in the event of it staying; including references to their squalid bullying excercises which I hope will encourage unsuspecting British residents to repudiate the so-called parking charges. I believe I cannot use forums as a reliable source but I am sure I can find other positive information on this. After all, Wikipedia delves into deep topical issues such as law and medicine and many other things. Do you have any objections to this? Please let me know. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. I believe your approach to this subject is incompatible with WP:NPOV. This policy requires us to cover all subjects neutrally, no matter how we personally feel about them. Negative information may (and indeed should) be included in an article to the extent, and only to the extent, it is reflected in reliable sources, and the amount of negative information must be proportionate to its prevalence in coverage of the subject in reliable sources (see WP:UNDUE). I have already removed defamatory statements by you about the company from the AfD. Please do not make similar statements in the article. Any negative information must be referenced to a reliable source. Please do not use any forums, opinion columns, self-published webpages or other unreliable sources.  Sandstein   06:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the rules. I was never planning on using forums as a source and I had no intention of being disproportionate. However, the fact that the company uses illicit bullying tactics is a fact and the remark is is no way defamatory. If that were so, they can prosecute me. The key word is illicit which means illegal. If indeed I am guilty of slander then it must be proven that their squalid attempts at extortion and dealings with crooked law firms and collection agencies and overall treatment of unsuspecting motorists with their so-called parking charge notices which do not reflect loss of profit are all legal. And that will never happen so I have no fear of publishing these things. I think what you were trying to say was not that my remarks were defamatory but damaging to the company. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Off wiki coordination
Hi Sandstein, In case I have to, where do I report an off-wiki English coordination group which shows clear connection between some users and their editing behaviour? In it, some admins where called "Armenians" and "Kurdish bigot", and it talked about "spanking" other admins. Some of the users have been permanently banned from some articles, and have been in two arbcomms (this list was not releaved during the arbcomm). I am wondering if a user off-wiki talks about "Spanking admins" and calls an admin a "bigot Kurd", is that sufficient for official ban of all the AA articles? Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Either WP:AE or WP:ARBCOM, I suggest. That's where the last such case, WP:EEML, ended up. But merely attacking Wikipedians offsite is not sanctionable on-wiki. We have no jurisdiction over what people do off-wiki, except in extreme cases of harrassment etc. You'd need evidence for either that or active coordination of edits in a manner that would be improper on-wiki.  Sandstein   16:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is asking for votes on a topic for a POV push improper behaviour?  For now I will just let the relavent admins know about talking behind their back and off-wiki coordination.  Perhaps they will take sufficient actions if not, I will open it up on WP:AE.    --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be improper conduct, see EEML.  Sandstein   17:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can the ban take place through showing this evidence off-line to the relavent admins or do I need to open an AE? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally would insist on an AE thread in oder to have a transparent discussion, but other admins may have different opinions.  Sandstein   17:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

However would this violate privacy guidelines of Wikipedia since it reveals the names of some wiki users? Note I would like to just cut & paste some of the comments of the user in question here: Wikipedia related (I have evidence for canvassing for vote coordination on Safavids from this user):
 * "Come on guys, I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. But there are certain bounds of diplomatic reason and logic in dealing with enemy, «toporniye» approaches result in what Turks are suffering from today with allegations of armocide. ....."
 * "Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others. «Turk is a master of his destiny», the old saying goes."
 * "Can you imagine how this annuls anything we say promoting tolerance and religious ethnic synergy in Azerbaijan, while pointing and blaming Armenia? Especially given that Melkonian was a U.S. citizen, can you imagine the scale of damage if Armenians get their hand to this material?? We will never recover from it!"

organized survey attempting to foil the article." The email went out to " azwikis@googlegroups.com".
 * Off-wiki coordination to get votes: "Guys, visit ASAP and cast your votes in Satisfactory section. Mardavich has
 * "I would follow GM’s suggestion not to exacerbate any admin, even Dmcdevit. I personally can’t stand that bigot Kurd Khoikhoi, but we have to work with all of them and drag them to our side."
 * "Guys I am totally blocked by Dmcdevit. He claimed that he blocked warring parties, but in fact he only blocked me, both Nareklm and Mardavich are freely editing Safavid Dynasty page. ..How can you post request for arbitration. I think Dmcdevit is Armenian, if so we are screwed."

This is some of the wikipedia online comments of the same user:
 * "general pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development"
 * "You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at."
 * "Armenian user Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from Mardavich."

Anyhow, I have evidence to present that the user seeked votes on Safavid article from this list. Few other users (some inactive) have also been involved in that list. I would like to post the evidence in AE, but I am not sure if Wikipedia allows revealing names from the group list. So may I send it to you privately? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right that you may not reveal names or other private information onwiki. Please don't send the evidence and the request for enforcement to me, but to the Arbitration Committee, as described at ARBCOM. They are set up to handle confidential evidence, I'm not.  Sandstein   18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the names were revealed in the Russian Wikipedia and one post actually connects again the user in question with his username. However,  I will go through the relavent admins whose names were mentioned in the online list first.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW This is another quote from the same wikilist: You and others know well that I support tough stance on Armenians, until they leave not only Karabakh but also territories of former Iravan khanate. They have historically proven not to be a trustworthy nation, should always be kept as servant/dependent people, and not allowed to resettle in any other part of Azerbaijan.. I will with relavent admins as there is no point in discussing any topic with such a user who has such views. Note the Russian wikipedia list also which was discovered also directly connects the person with his wikipedia account. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cannot fully carry out merger as required by Articles for deletion/SaaS data escrow
Hello, Sandstein.

You have recently, closed Articles for deletion/SaaS data escrow and advised Merge. I attempted to carry out the merger but it didn't fully succeed: One of the citations contains a link to a blacklisted website (www.cbronline.com) and so Spam Filter stopped me. I temporarily commented out the citation. Please advise, what should be done? Fleet Command (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the source is reliable, you can still add the citation, only without the URL. If the source is not reliable, you should either try to find another source for this assertion ("Of those companies, 90 per cent want to keep at least one copy of their SaaS data using cloud computing away from the SaaS vendor") or remove the assertion altogether.  Sandstein   10:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know how reliable the source is. Doesn't look like a WP:SPS but I don't know its reputation either. So, going with alternative: I've discarded the source along with part of the supporting contributions. For the rest, I found another source. Fleet Command (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing of AfD on Fictional fictional character
Hello. I see that you've recently closed the AfD for Fictional fictional character with a consensus for delete. However, the article has been made into a redirect. Could you please delete it for me? I've looked at the article's history, which now only seems to have one entry--Anthony Appleyard made a redirect. Has he re-created the article as a redirect after its deletion? I don't know how these things work. Many thanks,  • DP •  {huh?} 11:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the article has been deleted all right, but has been recreated as a redirect. It would take a WP:RfD to delete it.  Sandstein   19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Looks like Anthony Appleyard is simply trying to ignore the outcome. Why isn't the consensus reached enforcable? Many thansk,  • DP •  {huh?} 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus was to delete the article. Whether there should be a redirect of the same name is a different matter, not covered by the AfD consensus.  Sandstein   20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I think someone could just change it into a redirect to Fictional character. There's really no reason why it should redirect to a closed AfD discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, thanks, I did not neven notice that the redirect target was the AfD. Some other editor made that redirect apparently. Changed as suggested with the edit summary: "Changing redirect target to Fictional character, which I think was intended. No crossnamespace redirects. No opinion about whether we need this redirect either..."  Sandstein   20:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. , content was copied to Story within a story in August 2010. Per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, attribution must be provided for that copied content, through restoring Fictional fictional character's history or an alternative from WP:Merge and delete. I agree that the demonstrated consensus is for deletion, but Wikipedia's attribution requirements must be satisfied. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the policy says that "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted)." This means that attribution can be provided in other form than by undeleting the history. I believe that the link in the history to the deleted page is sufficient attribution in the present circumstances. After all, if somebody really wants to know who wrote this text, an admin can easily provide the deleted history.  Sandstein   05:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant section. Having to request the history from an admin or at WP:Requests for undeletion is not acceptable. As I've pointed out, there are ways of removing the page from article space, such as Talk:69 (sex position)/List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or a Histmerge request. I prefer to leave such complicated operations to admins who are more experienced at it.  Sandstein   05:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to interleaved histories, a histmerge would not be appropriate. May I list at DRV for wider input? WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21 has two examples. From that limited sample, DRV seems to favor the simplest solution, restoring the history under the recreated redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's really that important to you, I've restored the history, though I think Wikipedia has more important deficiencies than the lack of easy access to some minute part of an article's history.  Sandstein   07:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring the page history. I have added the Copieds. If the copy had been immediately reverted (as in Metafiction) or were only a few sentences, I would only have tagged it for eventual cleanup. If the text had been contributed by a single author, I would have used a dummy edit, as for User:Yulbesorry. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles deleted and review closed
Dear Sandstein, You deletd and closed the deletion review debate of article [Daniel Karpantschof] that I was working on. I am new to WikiPedia, but I find it very strange that articles get deleted without any further debate (since my debate posts were never replied to) and would have appreciated if, rather than deleting it, I would have gotten some pointers, as I asked for, on how to improve that article.

Daniel Karpantschof is a very interesting fellow whom I've been writing and read about for many years and it is my firm believe that an article on him is in order on the en.wikipedia is it is on the da.wikipedia (especially since he recently moved to the US and is now working in international circles to a much greater extend).

I understand the need to right citations and so forth, but seeing that most of the the articles done on him are in Danish and Google News (in spite of what another user may understand) does not cover any Danish media outlets, citations are hard, but not futile.

I hope you can help me. Many thanks.

Best,

Peter Hansson --Pjhansson (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.   Sandstein   05:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-20th century amateur scientists
I was just reading Articles for deletion/William Hunt Painter and wanted to comment (here as the AfD is closed) about amateur scientsits. In the 19th century and the Victorian period, as I'm sure you know, many of the scientists were amateurs (famously, the clergymen). I've written a few articles on such myself, mainly using criteria like awards they received, or learned societies they were fellows of, but some are rather obscure with scant sources on them. If you know of other debates on notability criteria for pre-20th century scientists, or existing guidelines, I'd like to look at those. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not aware of discussions about similar cases. I can't immediately see why WP:BIO and WP:PROF should not apply to such people in the same manner as to any other subjects.  Sandstein   05:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

IP again
Typical pattern by IP see all "contributions". Plz block that IP M.K. (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, per this talk page's edit notice, please make such requests at WP:AE. Or at WP:SPI, that may be somebody's sock.  Sandstein   16:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to userfy Phyrexia
Would you mind userfying the deleted article for me, as explained in this request? Thank you! Cool Hand Luke 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think userfying the page to cite anything that can be cited and then merging the cited (and appropriately condensed) content to the parent page is a good idea. But in view of the concerns that have been raised about what is seen as my involvement with respect to this page, I would prefer not to perform any more admin actions with respect to it. The AfD closer might be a better person to ask. To the extent that it matters for any purpose, though, I do hereby declare that I do not object to any administrator, including you, userfying the article.  Sandstein   16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. If the AFD closer had been asked in the first place, the issue could have been completely avoided. Cool Hand Luke 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Harvest (software)
I am the creator of the Harvest (software) article that lived on Wikipedia since October 2010, and I missed the WP:AfD process. I'm writing to request restoring the page, or restoring to my userspace. Reasons: 1) The page had already underwent review for deletion, and passed successfully by Administrators. No changes to content were made since then. 2) Harvest is mentioned in publications declared notable by Wikipedia, like The New York Times. Harvest was also mentioned in The Wall Street Journal recently. The link to the latter article was not on the page before deletion. 3) I'd like to add Harvest (software) to the WikiProject_Computing, an effort to increase the quality and quantity of information about computing on Wikipedia. Harvest (software) was apart of Comparison of time tracking software, an informative article that is apart of the project. Thank you. Srinath10 (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ OK, userfied at User:Srinath10/Harvest (software).  Sandstein   16:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

concerning editing
I have been reading through the editing of this ‘shakehandsman’ and he seems to focus on Labour politicians and especially women and minorities – his editing appears to lack balance and be one sided according to comments written by many. It’s terribly sad that Wikipedia is being manipulated in this way! Can anything be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.45.128 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.   Sandstein   05:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, the above IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Truesayer. He's currently going through my talk page messaging various people who might have disagreed with me at some point in my five years here. This is in retaliation for me uncovering all his sockpuppetry going back over a year (four accounts so far) and associated disruptive editing of the Shahid Malik article. Details of the SPIs here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Truesayer/Archive and the latest ones are here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Truesayer. --Shakehandsman (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

1/0 web_comic
Hello, wrt, I think your closing statement is flawed. DS clearly did give policy-based reasons to keep. In fact he gave the best possible keep !vote--he provided sources that no one disputed. Dream Focus, while a bit less clear, was pretty clearly agreeing that the awards were sufficient (as that was the sole reason they gave for keeping). Could you please at least update your closing statement and consider closing as no consensus. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've apparently overlooked DS's second statement. I've re-closed the discussion as no consensus.  Sandstein   05:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. TPH seems to have forgotten to inform you that he took this to Deletion review/Log/2011 April 28. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Sandstein   05:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Melisende of Tripoli
Please reconsider this close as everyone apart from the nominator felt we should Keep This. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So? It was kept.  Sandstein   06:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

AE board
Since you told me to post it on the AE board with relavent links, I have done here: . Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived ANI Discussion Re: OhNoItsJamie?
Hi Sandstein,

Sorry to be a dufus, but I cannot find the archived version of the recent ANI discussion regarding OhNoItsJamie. Do you know where it got saved? It was originally at WP:ANI Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. Have you tried the search feature at WP:ANI?  Sandstein   19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mention
You were mentioned at AN. FYI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice.  Sandstein   19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Shinese AfD
Hi, Sandstein. I see you closed the AfD for Shinese as keep, which I don't disagree with. However, I brought up valid points that were not responded to at all. Is deletion review an appropriate avenue for contesting this? Two of the three votes were rather spurious and I'd like to see my concerns addressed in some way.

Thanks. I'm sorry for bothering you, but I figured that as the closer, you'd be the best person to ask. – anna  11:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean Articles for deletion/Shinese (2nd nomination), I assume. Sorry, DRV is only for contesting the outcome of the discussion, not for continuing the discussion. If you want to continue to discuss the merits of the arguments presented, you can do so on the article talk page or with the users who made the arguments on their talk pages.  Sandstein   11:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's right, sorry for not specifying. I'll start a discussion on the talk page and notify the voters and take it from there, I suppose. Hopefully they'll be willing to address my specific concerns... thanks for the quick reply. – anna  11:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother again, but I had one last question. On second glance, I'm seeing submissions at deletion review, like this one, that don't seem to be contesting the closing admin's judgment but are instead asking for scrutiny of the arguments presented. Is this acceptable or is it non-standard? It seems like it'd be the logical spot to contest flimsy arguments, but obviously I'm not sure. Grazie :) – anna  12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * DRV is concerned with outcomes. That DRV request argues that the discussion should have been be closed with a different outcome. According to what you say above, that's not what you want.  Sandstein   16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it something that can be used if you think a debate should be relisted (which I feel may apply in this case)? – anna  19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, but such a request is almost certain to be unsuccessful unless you can convincingly show that a relist would very likely have resulted in a "delete" consensus.  Sandstein   19:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for explaining. – anna  20:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)